Sri N Nanjundaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:12799 CRL.P No. 6571 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6571 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) /

¶6

528(BNSS))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI N NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, R/A BRIGADE GATEWAY APARTMENT, DR RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, 2^ND STAGE, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE- 560 055.

¶9

ALSO AT NO.861, KANVA SRI SAI, COMPLEX OPP. MODI HOSPITAL, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE- 560 086

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

(BY SRI. SHREERAM TIMMAPPA NAYAK.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATKA BASAVESHWARA NAGAR P S AND INVESTIGATION BY CID NO.1, CARLTON HOUSE, PALACE ROAD, REP BY THE SPP HIGH COURT BANGALORE- 560 001

¶15

SRI CHANDRASHEKAR SON OF SRI SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 74, 7^TH CROSS, LAKSHMINARAYANA

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:12799 CRL.P No. 6571 of 2023

¶18

PURAM, MARKET ROAD, BENGALURU 560 021.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. TEJESH P., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. C. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶21

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PCR.NO.11702/2020 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120B, 166A, 419, 420, 468 OF IPC PENDING BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (SPECIAL COURT), BENGALURU (CCH-1), WHICH IS HEREWITH PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS , THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶26

(i) Quash the proceedings of the PCR No.11702/2020 filed by the respondent No.2 for the offences 120B, 166A, 419, 420, 468 of Indian Penal Code pending before the Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge (Special Court) at Bangalore (CCH-1) which is herewith produced as Annexure B.

¶27

(ii) Quash the FIR in Crime No.207/2020 for the offences 120B, 166A, 419, 420 and 468 of India Penal Code filed by the respondent No.1 police i.e., Basaveshwaranagar Police and presently investigation by the CID which is herewith produced as Annexure – A and trial by the Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge (Special Court) at Bengaluru (CCH-1).

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:12799 CRL.P No. 6571 of 2023

¶30

(iii) Pass such other relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.

¶32

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the 2^nd respondent – defacto complainant filed a private complaint in PCR No.11702/2020 before the learned Magistrate for alleged offences under Sections 120B, 166(a), 419, 420 and 468 IPC by arraigning the petitioner as accused No.2 along with 18 other accused persons including Sree Kanava Souharda Co-operative Credit Limited as accused No.1 to the said complaint. By order dated 22.10.2020, the learned Magistrate referred the matter to the 1^st respondent – police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and an FIR in Crime No.207/2020 was registered against the petitioner – accused No.2 and other accused persons, pursuant to which the final report has been filed by the 1^st respondent and the matter is pending before the Trial Court.

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12799 CRL.P No. 6571 of 2023

¶34

It is contended by the petitioner that in the absence of requisite affidavit as mandatorily required in law as held in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and another Vs. State of U.P. and others – (2015) 4 S.C.R. 108 , the impugned proceedings in PCR No.11702/2020 were not maintainable and deserve to be quashed. It is also contended that the learned Magistrate committed an error in referring the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by passing the impugned cryptic, laconic, non-speaking and unreasoned order without any application of mind and without assigning any reasons for such reference for investigation, which is not sustainable in law in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others – 2025 INSC 139. It was also pointed out that even prior to the impugned proceedings in relation to the alleged offences under Sections 120B, 166(a), 419, 420 and 468 IPC along with offences punishable under the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2004 (for short, the KPIDFE Act’), earlier proceedings in Spl.C.Nos.191/2021 and 192/2021 are pending before the Special Court in which the petitioner is also arraigned as an accused person and as such, the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed. It was further submitted that

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12799 CRL.P No. 6571 of 2023

¶36

the complainant herein as already been cited as one of the witnesses in the said Spl.C.No.191/2021 and 192/2021 and even otherwise, he would be interrogated during investigation in the said proceedings and on this ground also the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed.

¶37

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the material on record clearly indicates that prior to filing the instant private compliant in PCR No.11702/2020, the 2^nd respondent – defacto complainant had not approached the jurisdictional police station and had not filed the mandatory affidavit as required and held in Priyanka Srivastava’s case supra. It is pertinent to note that a perusal of the aforesaid complaint in PCR No.11702/2020 will indicate that except bald, vague and omnibus allegations, no specific allegations or instances of commission of offences by the petitioner, who is said to be the Chairman of the

¶39

accused No.1 – Society are forthcoming and the same are conspicuously absent in the complaint. Further, there is no

¶40

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12799 CRL.P No. 6571 of 2023

¶41

averment in the complaint that the petitioner – accused No.2 was responsible or liable for commission of the alleged offences; on the other hand, all the allegations are directed against accused No.3 – President and accused Nos.10, 17 and 18 without specific reference to the petitioner, who is said to be the Chairman of the accused No.1 – Society; in fact, while it is stated in the cause title to the complaint that petitioner is the Chairman, there is neither any allegation nor even a reference to the petitioner / Chairman or is any offence alleged against him in the entire complaint. In other words, in the entire complaint, there is not a single allegation of commission of any of the offences by the petitioner – accused No.2, who is said to be the Chairman and is not referred to in the entire body of the complaint. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner – accused No.2 deserve to be quashed.

¶42

The undisputed material on record also indicates that even prior to the impugned complaint filed by respondent No.2, proceedings in Spl.C.Nos.191/2021 and 192/2021 in relation to the instant alleged offences along with offences under KPIDFE Act are pending before the Special Court, in which the petitioner has also

¶43

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12799 CRL.P No. 6571 of 2023

¶44

been arraigned as an accused person; it follows therefrom that the petitioner can’t be prosecuted twice for the same offences by way of two / dual / parallel / simultaneous proceedings and on this ground also, the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed.

¶45

A perusal of the order dated 22.10.2020 passed by the learned Magistrate will indicate that the learned Magistrate committed an error in referring the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by passing the impugned cryptic, laconic, non-speaking and unreasoned order without any application of mind and without assigning any reasons for such reference for investigation, which is not sustainable in law in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Om Prakash’s case supra and the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed on this score also.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioner is also correct in his submission that the respondent No.2 – complainant herein is cited as a witness in Spl.C.Nos.191/2021 and 192/2021 before the Special Court and even otherwise, since he can be interrogated during the course of investigation / further investigation in the said pending cases, continuation of the impugned proceedings would be

¶47